BHAGWANDAS vs THE RETURNING OFFICER and others
These are two appeals filed under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against an interlocutory order of the Election Tribunal of Sindh, Karachi, which dismissed the appellant's application for the dismissal of an election petition and allowed the respondent's application for amendment of the petition and verification of annexures. The core legal question is whether an appeal lies under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against an interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal during the pendency of an election petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in limine, holding that the appeals were incompetent because only orders enumerated under section 67(1) of the Act are appealable. The key principle laid down is that appeals under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 are restricted to final or specific orders enumerated in section 67(1) and do not lie against interlocutory orders passed during ongoing proceedings before the Election Tribunal.
- Are appeals maintainable under section 67(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 against interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal?
- Which types of orders are appealable before the Supreme Court under section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Section 67(3), Representation of the People Act 1976
- Section 67(1), Representation of the People Act 1976
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---These are two appeals under section 67(3), Representation of the People Act, 1976 from the order dated 19-11-1989 of the Election Tribunal of Sindh, Karachi.
2. The appellant was successful in the election to the National Assembly from a seat reserved for the non-Muslims (Hindus/Scheduled Castes). Respondent No,2 who was also a candidate from the said seat but had lost the election, filed an election petition before the Chief Election Commissioner which was in due course referred for trial to the Election Tribunal of Sindh. During the course of hearing of the petition, the appellant moved an application seeking dismissal of the election petition on the grounds that it did not set out the details of the corrupt and illegal practices allegedly committed by him and that the accompanying annexures had not been verified in the manner required by law. On his part, respondent No,2 also filed an application for amendment of the petition in order to get the petition as well as the annexures properly verified. The learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the appellant but allowed that of respondent No,2. From the order of the learned Election Tribunal, the appellant has preferred these appeals.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant we are of the view that these appeals are not competent. It is to be noticed that the election petition is still pending before the learned Election Tribunal and has not yet been finally disposed of. In the case of Zahid Sarfraz v. Nadir Pervez Khan 1987 SCM R 1107, this Court examined the types of orders from which appeals can be preferred under section 67(3), Representation of the People Act. The view taken was that only such types of orders as were enumerated in section 67(1) of the Act were appealable before this Court. Clearly, the order from which the appellant has preferred these two appeals, is not the type of order which can by any means be treated as one falling under the said enumeration. These appeals are, therefore, incompetent and are hereby dismissed in limine.
Cited by 5 cases
- DUR MUHAMMAD KHAN NASAR and others vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ TAREEN 2014 PLD Balochistan 152
- BILAL AKBAR BHATTI vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, MULTAN and 15 others 2015 PLD Lahore 272
- HUMAYUN AKHTAR KHAN vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 12 others 2010 YLR 2959
- ARSHAD ALI ANJUM Versus REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, LAHORE REGION, NORTH ZONE, LAHORE , Mushtaq Masood, Malik Saeed Hassan and Quraishi Muhammad Hafeez 1995 PLC 443
- Dr. SHEELA B. CHARLES vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL and another 1995 CLC 344